The Early Iron Age Collective Tomb LCG-1 at Dibbā Al-Bayah, Oman: Long-Distance Exchange and Cross-Cultural Interaction

Antiquity 2021 Vol.
95 (379): 104–124
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.224
Research Article
The Early Iron Age collective tomb LCG-1 at Dibbā

al-Bayah, Oman: long-distance exchange and
cross-cultural interaction
Dennys Frenez1,* , Francesco Genchi2, Hélène David-Cuny3 & Sultan Al-Bakri4
1
Department of History and Cultures, University of Bologna, Italy
2
Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza—University of Rome, Italy
3
Centre Français d’Archéologie et de Sciences Sociales, Kuwait City, Kuwait
4
Director General of Archaeology, Ministry of Heritage and Tourism, Oman
* Author for correspondence: ✉ dennys.frenez@unibo.it
The Iron Age (c. 1300–600 BC) of South-eastern

Arabia is characterised by rapid expansion of settle-
ment. Social structures formed over the previous mil-
lennia, however, persisted and were reinforced
through the development of collective funerary
monuments. A recently discovered tomb of Late
Bronze to Early Iron Age date at Dibbā al-Bayah in
the Sultanate of Oman has yielded a range of artefacts
that illuminate the nature and extent of the long-dis-
tance contacts of the local community. Seemingly
selected not only for their exotic appeal, but also for
their apotropaic function, these objects testify to a
deep cross-cultural knowledge extending across the
wider region during this crucial period in Arabian
prehistory.
Keywords: Arabia, Oman Peninsula, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Dilmun, Elam, Kassite, exchange networks
Introduction
Long-distance trade and cross-cultural interaction played a significant role in shaping the
socio-economic and cultural developments in prehistoric South-eastern Arabia (Frenez
2019). According to geochemical analysis and Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform texts (Begemann
et al. 2010; Laursen & Steinkeller 2017), the Oman Peninsula was a major source of copper
for the surrounding regions from at least the late fourth millennium BC. While local copper
minerals were processed in Oman from the Late Neolithic period (mid fourth millennium
Received: 12 November 2019; Revised: 28 March 2020; Accepted: 7 April 2020

© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd. This is an
Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
104
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.224 Published online by Cambridge University Press
The Early Iron Age collective tomb LCG‐1 at Dibba ̄ al‐Bayah, Oman
BC), large-scale copper working began in the Hafit period (c. 3100–2700 BC) (Frenez 2019:
12). This period is characterised by extensive socio-economic and cultural innovation,
including the incipient establishment of oasis farming (Charbonnier 2017), the introduction
of a new collective funerary ritual based on collective stone cairns (Bortolini & Munoz 2015:
65–67), and the appearance of massive stone platforms (called ‘towers’ in the scientific litera-
ture), the function of which is not yet fully understood (Döpper & Schmidt 2017). The
socio-economic and cultural complexity of South-eastern Arabian populations further
increased during the Umm an-Nar period (c. 2700–2000 BC), which is marked by the
intensification of sedentary settlement (Azzarà 2009), the development of larger, more com-
plex funerary structures (Bortolini & Munoz 2015: 71–73), the proliferation of stone ‘towers’
(Cable & Thornton 2013), and the beginning of intensive, diversified cross-cultural interac-
tions (Frenez 2019: 12–29).
The emergence of the Hafit and Umm an-Nar Cultures—often referred to as the ‘Magan’
civilisation—is often interpreted as a socio-economic response to the growing export of local
copper (Cleuziou 1996: 159; Laursen & Steinkeller 2017: 14). In this period, Omani copper
was increasingly used in Mesopotamia (Begemann et al. 2010: 157–59 & fig. 5): by the
beginning of the third millennium BC, it was used to produce about 30 per cent of objects
tested for copper provenance, reaching up to 55 per cent towards the end of the Umm an-Nar
period. In these 1000 years, the Umm an-Nar communities diversified and greatly expanded
long-distance trade, interacting also with south-eastern Iran and the Indus Valley (Cleuziou
& Méry 2002; Thornton 2013; Frenez 2019). Meanwhile, the construction of such massive
stone and mud-brick structures and the intensification of copper production must have
required a coordinated effort to plan operations and mobilise the necessary workforce. As
summarised by Laursen and Steinkeller (2017: 26), however,
in stark contrast to the neighbours of the Oman Peninsula, which all were organised in
urban and proto-urban systems, Magan society apparently continued its organisation
along kinship lines in some stratified tribal or clan-like system […] Qualitative and quan-
titative variation in the collective Umm an-Nar tombs appears to be the result of social
competition that aimed to enforce rank hierarchy among groups equivalent to extended
households, in contrast to hierarchies between prominent individuals.
Nevertheless, high variability in the size of Umm an-Nar tombs and the increasing presence
of prized, exotic goods in both tombs and settlements suggest that this dynamic economic
environment may have eventually favoured some individuals and their clans over others, pos-
sibly leading to an incipient form of social stratification and political centralisation (Frenez
2019: 13–29).
At the end of the third millennium BC, South-eastern Arabia witnessed an extensive
socio-cultural and economic reorganisation that marked the transition from the Umm
an-Nar to the so-called Wadi Suq period (c. 2000–1300 BC, Middle and Late Bronze
Ages). The population was still distributed across the territory with remarkable continuity,
but the scant archaeological data show a lower density in the settlement pattern and a reorgan-
isation of the subsistence strategy, with a more active pastoral component (Cleuziou & Tosi
2007: 258; Magee 2014: 188). The abandonment of almost all monumental ‘towers’ and
stone cairns with the sudden introduction of new types of semi-subterranean collective
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd
105
Dennys Frenez et al.
tombs marked a new strategy of social landscaping, possibly implying a deep cultural and pol-
itical breakdown (Magee 2014: 189; Laursen & Steinkeller 2017: 66). In the material cul-
ture, exotic components were abandoned in favour of new, diversified local forms and
styles (Magee 2014: 189). While copper production continued—even if at an apparently
reduced level (Weisgerber 2007)—long-distance exchanges decreased dramatically (Frenez
2019: 29–31), with the export of Omani copper to Mesopotamia now controlled by Dilmun
merchants settled in Bahrain and the upper Gulf (Begemann et al. 2010: 160–61; Laursen &
Steinkeller 2017: 68).
External factors, such as the temporary disruptions of long-distance trade networks due to
major political and cultural breakdowns in Mesopotamia, southern Iran and the Indus
Valley, have often been adduced to explain the emergence of the Wadi Suq Culture in South-
eastern Arabia (Magee 2014: 124). As noted by Cleuziou and Tosi (2007: 273), these
transformations, however, began when southern Mesopotamia was still flourishing under
the political control of the emerging local Isin and Larsa Dynasties, c. 2011–1755 BC
(Sallaberger & Schrakamp 2015: 136 & tab. 39), and the Indus Civilisation was still in its
‘mature’ phase (Harappa period 3C, c. 2200–1900 BC) (Kenoyer 2008: 717 & tab. 1). Magee
(2014: 124–25) therefore suggested that the socio-cultural reorganisation that characterised
the Wadi Suq period was “the ultimate step in affirming the tribal values that had defined
the Southeast Arabian society for generations” against rising inequality created by wealth accu-
mulated through long-distance trade during the Umm an-Nar period.
Subsequent to the contraction and reorganisation of settlement patterns that characterised
the Wadi Suq period, the population rapidly expanded during the Iron Age I and II (c. 1300–
600 BC), with long-distance exchange eventually thriving again following the previous ‘Dark
Age’ (Cleuziou & Tosi 2007: 257). Some scholars have suggested that both phenomena were
due to the rise of the Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC) (e.g. Humphries 1974: 53–54).
Settlement expansion, however, was already underway during the Iron Age II (1000–600
BC), when the large-scale introduction of an irrigation system, known today as falaj (pl.
aflaj), enabled a substantial increase in the extent of irrigated land and the occupation of
new territories (Magee 2014: 214 & 258). The Iron Age II also witnessed the final stage
of dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) domestication in South-eastern Arabia. Over the previ-
ous millennia, these animals were, in fact, only used as a source of meat, milk and hair (Curci
et al. 2014; Magee 2015: 271–72). Now, dromedaries were also used as pack animals to
transport goods overland, opening up a new network of inland trade routes that crossed
the Arabian Peninsula towards the Levant and the Mediterranean (Magee 2014: 204–13
& 226), eventually fostering the emergence of a new class of ‘desert lords’ (Loreto et al. 2019).
This new socio-economic organisation, however, did not affect the political and cultural con-
figuration of the local society, which remained based on the tribal cohesion formed over the pre-
vious millennia (Cleuziou & Tosi 2007: 273; Magee 2014: 124–25). Such continuity in social
relations based on kinship bonds is evidenced predominantly by the widespread adoption of
standardised forms of collective burial since the transition from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze
Age in the second half of the fourth millennium BC (Munoz 2019). In the Late Bronze and
Early Iron Ages, South-eastern Arabia was characterised by greater variability in funerary struc-
tures, but tombs predominantly still contained the remains of multiple individuals accompanied
by a broad range of both local and exotic grave goods (Yule 2014: 34).
106
Tomb LCG-1
Tomb LCG-1 was discovered in early 2012 during construction works at the Sporting Club
at Dibbā al-Bayah (25°36′ 38.78′′ north, 56°15′ 28.57′′ east), in the Musandam Governorate
of the Sultanate of Oman (Figure 1). Later in 2012, the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of
the Sultanate of Oman (now Heritage and Tourism) initiated an excavation of the tomb
under the supervision of Sultan bin Saif Al-Bakri (Director General of Archaeology). A
broader campaign of detailed topographic documentation and stratigraphic assessment was
commissioned to Maurizio Cattani (University of Bologna) at the end of 2012.
Two additional excavation seasons were conducted in April and from October to Decem-
ber 2013 by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture, with Francesco Genchi (Sapienza—
University of Rome) as field-director (Genchi 2013, 2014). In 2014, further investigations
around tomb LCG-1, including test excavations and geophysical prospection, demonstrated
that the tomb formed part of a burial ground comprising two large corridor tombs (LCG-1
and LCG-2) surrounded by clusters of funerary pits that were in use throughout the Iron Age
(Genchi et al. 2018).
LCG-1 is a semi-subterranean, long-chamber tomb measuring approximately 14.75 ×
3.50m. The tomb is lined internally with flat, irregular limestone blocks and roofed with a cor-
belled vault of large limestone slabs (Figure 2). A raised, limestone-paved floor covered part of
the chamber’s basement, possibly indicating a second structural phase. The tomb features two
trapezoidal, short-corridor entrances in its northern side. Fourteen niches containing clusters of
disarticulated human bones (in secondary deposition) were created along the inner walls of the
structure using large slabs supported by smaller stones. Long-chamber tombs—either semi-
subterranean or wholly above ground—and comparable ritual practices are known from
other broadly contemporaneous funerary sites across the region (for summary and recent devel-
opments, see Genchi et al. 2018; Pellegrino et al. 2019).
Analysis of the structural stratigraphy and the material culture of LCG-1 indicate that
the tomb underwent several phases of use, starting around the Middle to Late Bronze
Age transition (c. 1600 BC), and throughout the Iron Age I and II, up to 600 BC. As
no radiocarbon dates are yet available for LCG-1, the preliminary dating of its earliest
phases is based predominantly on the soft-stone vessel assemblage. This includes several
examples with designs comparable to those on vessels securely dated to the Middle to
Late Bronze Age transition (see Velde 2003: fig. 6). Typological assessment of bronze
arrowheads from LCG-1 indicates that the tomb was no longer frequented after c. 600
BC (Yule & Gernez 2018: 54 & fig. 4.11).
Analysis of the material from the main chamber and surrounding pits documents several
episodes involving the rearrangement and relocation of previously deposited skeletal remains
and grave goods, and the possible reburial of older skeletal remains in external funerary pits.
Two such pits containing grave goods comparable with those found in the main tomb are
radiocarbon-dated to the Iron Age I and the beginning of Iron Age II (Genchi 2013:
146): charcoal samples from pit3-SU5 and pit4-SU9 provide dates of 2867±40 BP and
2777±40 BP (LTL13337A: 1200–910 cal BC at 95.4%; LTL13338A: 1020–820 cal BC
at 95.4%; dates modelled in OxCal v3.10 using the IntCal13 calibration curve; Bronk Ram-
sey 2009; Reimer et al. 2013), respectively.
107
Figure 1. Map showing the major archaeological sites mentioned in the text (figure by D. Frenez based on a MapboxTM
layout).
Osteological analysis
An initial assessment of the human bones retrieved during the first excavation season was
undertaken by Antonio Todero (University of Bologna), while the skeletal remains recovered
from the remaining eight niches were excavated and analysed by Luciano Fattore (Sapienza—
University of Rome). A preliminary evaluation of the minimum number of individuals
(MNI) suggests that LCG-1 contained at least 188 individuals, including 153 adults (both
males and females) and 35 sub-adults (L. Fattore pers. comm.). A 90 per cent reduction in
the expected number of smaller bones of the hands and feet (according to the MNI) indicates
that LCG-1 was not intended as a place of primary inhumation (Fattore 2014: 50).
108
Figure 2. Tomb LCG-1: final plan of the main funerary structure and related ritual pits (figure by M. Cattani &
F. Genchi; courtesy of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate of Oman).
Material culture
The individuals buried in tomb LCG-1 were accompanied by 9666 objects, with an add-
itional 1730 artefacts deposited in five external funerary pits (Genchi 2013: fig. 47). The
combined assemblage from both the main tomb and the external pits includes decorated con-
tainers of local soft-stone (241 vessels and 73 lids), along with pottery vessels (116)
109
characteristic of the local Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I and II ceramic tradition. Bronze
vessels (79) and five large bronze cauldrons were also present, along with various bronze weap-
ons, including swords (9) and daggers (139), axes (70) and halberds (10), spearheads (9) and
many arrowheads (2620)—the latter often retaining their original arrangement inside quivers
that would have been made from organic materials. The excavations also yielded 6802 beads
and pendants made from local soft-stones, as well as from exotic, allochthonous gemstones
and precious metals (Genchi 2013: fig. 64). Items intended for personal care and ornamen-
tation also include bronze razors and pins, and bronze, silver and gold rings, earrings and ban-
gles. Decorated seashell discs characteristic of this period across the wider Middle East were
also discovered (Caputo & Genchi 2016; Weeks et al. 2019).
Most exceptional is the discovery in tomb LCG-1 of three seals—two stone stamp seals
and one faience cylinder seal—as well as a gold-granulated pendant and an inscribed eye-
stone. We present and discuss these artefacts in light of their significance for understanding
of the long-distance cross-cultural exchange networks that connected South-eastern Arabia to
the wider region during this period.
Furthermore, the careful evaluation of these artefacts using a broad spectrum of icono-
graphic and manufacturing (i.e. raw materials and shapes) data, along with information
from ancient textual sources, allows us to look beyond the intrinsic economic and aesthetic
nature of trade. More profound, intimate motivations seem to have led to the acquisition of
such exotic objects for reasons other than the basic, practical functions that they usually ful-
filled (e.g. the search for apotropaic protection against evil forces, rather than simply the visual
display of wealth). Indeed, this conscious selection of particular cultural traits over the pri-
mary function of an object required a deep understanding of distant cultures that could
only have developed over a long history of cross-cultural interactions.
Stamp seals (DA34264, DA35873): the Gulf region

Although quite different from each other, both stamp seals DA34264 and DA35873 exhibit
features that could derive from the Dilmun seal tradition (David-Cuny & Neyme 2016: 19–
45) (Figure 3). Recent discoveries in the Oman Peninsula, however, demonstrate the exist-
ence of consistent idiosyncrasies, suggesting that they instead resulted from local innovations,
possibly inspired by external influences including Dilmun seals and Egyptian scarabs.
DA34264 was recovered during sieving of sediments from the first exploratory trench exca-
vated in 2012. This Dilmun-inspired stamp seal has an elliptical, slightly asymmetrical disc, with
a length of 20.4mm, a width of 16.2mm and a 3.3mm-thick rim. The domed boss has a height
of 4.0mm, and a shallow groove running around the seal marks the division between the disc and
the boss, without creating an actual collar. It has a transverse perforation with terminal diameters
of 2.5mm. Like most Dilmun seals (David-Cuny & Neyme 2016: 24–45), DA34264 was
carved from a soft-stone before being heat-treated to harden and whiten the outer layers. The
sealing surface is decorated with small opposing and intersecting triangles to create a zigzag pat-
tern. The domed boss has four large, double-dotted motifs at the centre of each quadrant, and
traces of three shallow parallel lines carved lengthwise—a pattern typical for Dilmun seals.
DA35873 was discovered in association with disarticulated human bones within niche D,
which was created during the main construction phase of LCG-1 (Fattore 2014: 51). This
110
Figure 3. Tomb LCG-1: stamp seals DA34264 and DA35873 (figure by H. David-Cuny; images courtesy of the
Ministry of Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate of Oman).
small stamp seal is an elliptical disc, with a length of 14.7mm, a width of 11.3mm and a
1.8mm-thick rim. The thick, domed boss is 7.7mm high, and the interface between the
boss and the disc is marked by a deep, toothed groove running around the seal. It has a trans-
verse perforation with terminal diameters of 2.2mm. DA35873 is made of a homogeneous,
fine-grained material that possibly results from the controlled, deep-core heating of steatite.
The sealing surface features the deeply engraved image of a goat with large, lunate horns,
framed within a partially toothed ellipse, along with a short, three-toothed projection
between the goat’s back and horns. The domed boss exhibits four small, single-dotted circle
motifs at the centre of each quadrant, and a longitudinal ladder-like pattern. The morph-
ology, manufacturing technique and iconography suggest that DA34264 is an example of
Dilmun-inspired, provincial-style seals, which are attested predominantly at sites along the
Hajar Mountains in South-eastern Arabia, but also on Failaka Island in Kuwait (David-
Cuny & Neyme 2016: 158; Cocca et al. 2019: fig. 10; Williams et al. in press; M. Boraik
& H. David-Cuny pers. comm.) (Figure 4).
111
Figure 4. Dilmun-inspired seals from Failaka Island and northern Oman (figure by H. David-Cuny; images courtesy of
the National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters of Kuwait and the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate
of Oman).
The connection between DA35873 and the Dilmun seal tradition is less obvious, despite
its general morphology and design. Instead, it can be compared to a series of seal-beads found
on the Oman Peninsula and on Failaka Island (Figure 5). These are usually considered to be
112
local adaptations of Egyptian-like scarab seals that were produced extensively in the Middle
and Late Bronze Age Levant and diffused throughout the Middle East (Ben-Tor 2007). A
Levantine influence that probably reached northern Oman via the Gulf, where it combined
with local features, is therefore proposed here for DA35873 and the other amulet-seals of this
type found in South-eastern Arabia.
Cylinder seal (DA29479/2): south-western Iran

Cylinder seal DA29479/2 was recovered during sieving of sediments from the first explora-
tory trench excavated in 2012. The seal is made from a whitish to light yellow glazed siliceous,
artificial material (faience), and retains corrosion traces and fragments of two 5.5mm-high
copper rings around both ends. The cylinder has a diameter ranging between 13.1 and
13.8mm and a height of 54.8mm (56.0mm including the surviving copper ring) (Figure 6).
The cylinder’s iconography is carved in the Luristan Provincial Style of the Late Middle Elam-
ite period, which dates from the mid fourteenth to the start of the tenth century BC (Roach
2008: 547). The main design is framed along the upper and lower horizontal axes by a ‘boxed-
border’ characteristic of this style (Roach 2008: 539–40). Close comparisons are found in the
Luristan Provincial-Style cylinder seals from Susa and Chogha Zanbil in the Khuzestan province
of south-western Iran (Roach 2008: nos 3102, 3222, 3320, 3355) (Figure 7a–b).
The main subject represented on the seal (Figure 6) is a winged, anthropomorphic crea-
ture with a raptor’s (eagle?) head and talons, wearing a long robe and possibly a horned head-
dress. This creature stands on a horned goat (ibex?) to the left of a tripartite tree—possibly a
date palm—with a small bird perched on top. The figure grasps the branch of the tree with its
left hand, while in its right, it holds a small, possibly human or animal, figure. According to
F. Wiggermann ( pers. comm.), the anthropomorphic figure on DA29479/2
represents a master of animals (Anzû or Ukaduhhû) protecting the bearer of the seal
against demonic forces, represented by the horned goats; the master of animals is a servant
spirit of the great gods Ninurta and his wife Gula and, together, the three protect the
bearer of the seal against evil in general and diseases in particular.
This subject is paralleled in a Late Middle Elamite cylinder seal from Chogha Zanbil, which
exhibits a winged creature with an eagle’s head and talons standing on two small, horned
goats in front of a blooming palm tree, while holding two larger goats by their hind legs
(Roach 2008: no. 3094) (Figure 7c). Comparable scenes with a winged demon dominating
animals are engraved on a few Second Kassite-style seals dated from the mid fourteenth to the
end of the thirteenth century BC (Matthews 1990: 61–63, nos 142–49), and on a Middle
Assyrian cylinder seal dated to the end of the thirteenth century BC (Matthews 1990: 104,
no. 429) (Figure 7d).
A greenish faience cylinder seal engraved in the Luristan Provincial Style was found at Tell
Abraq, on the north-western coast of the Oman Peninsula, about 70km west of Dibbā (Potts
2000: 118) (Figure 8a). Tell Abraq and Saruq al-Hadid, about 120km to the south-west of
Dibbā, have both yielded amulet seals featuring an apotropaic representation of Lamaštu
(Potts et al. 2013; M. Boraik & H. David-Cuny pers. comm.) (Figure 8b), an evil Babylonian
demoness considered responsible for pre-natal and infant mortality (Wiggermann 2000).
113
Figure 5. Imports and local imitations of Egyptian and Levantine scarab seals (figure by H. David-Cuny; images
courtesy of the National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters of Kuwait and the Ministry of Heritage and Culture
of the Sultanate of Oman).
114
Figure 6. Tomb LCG-1: cylinder seal DA29479/2 (figure by H. David-Cuny; images courtesy of the Ministry of
Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate of Oman).
115
Figure 7. a–b) Luristan Provincial Style seals from Susa; c) Late Middle Elamite seal from Chogha Zanbil; d) Middle
Assyrian seal of unknown provenance [not to scale] (Matthews 1990: no. 429; Roach 2008: nos 3102, 3222, 3094).
Gold pendant (DA29588): north-western Iran

DA29588 is a round gold pendant, approximately 29mm in diameter, decorated in granu-
lation with a geometric rosette comprising 13 triangles extending from two parallel, single-
grained lines running around the perimeter, and with the same design repeated around a cen-
tral embossed knob. A large, wide suspension loop has double-grained lines running around
116
Figure 8. Tell Abraq: a) Luristan Provincial Style seal in faience [not to scale] (Potts 2000: 118); b) Lamaštu plaque
made from soft-stone (Potts et al. 2013: fig. 3).
the edges and the centre (Figure 9a). A wheel-type gold bead (Figure 9b), produced in a simi-
lar style to DA29588 and using an extremely fine granulation technique, was recovered from
the large trench excavated immediately to the south of LCG-1.
Similar granulated gold ornaments have been found in graves at Marlik, in the Gilan Prov-
ince of north-western Iran (Negahban 1996: nos 184 & 202) (Figure 9c–d). Maxwell-
Hyslop (1971: 190) proposed that the Marlik examples may have been produced by the
same workshop between the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC, thus representing the earli-
est development of this most intricate gold-working technique. Metal pendants with apotro-
paic purposes have often been found in graves throughout the wider Middle East (Black &
Green 2014: 30 & fig. 21).
117
Figure 9. Tomb LCG-1: a–b) gold granulated pendant DA29588 and wheel-bead DA34294 (figure by F. Genchi,
courtesy of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate of Oman); c–d) comparable ornaments from Marlik
[not to scale] (Negahban 1996: pls 54 & 56).
Eye-stone (DA34259): Babylonia

Eye-stone DA34259 was discovered in October 2013 during sieving of sediments associated
with human remains in the main chamber (Genchi 2014: 26 & figs 31–32) (Figure 10). This
exceptional find warrants special attention not only because it reflects the network of cross-
118
cultural interactions established by the community represented in LCG-1, but also because it
bears the southernmost cuneiform inscription so far discovered—and the only one found in
South-eastern Arabia.
Large beads made from stone or marine shell and decorated to recall eye designs have been
found at sites from the Mediterranean to South Asia, dating from the sixth millennium BC
onwards (Dubin 2009: 310; Kenoyer 2013: 5–6). Beads made from banded varieties of chal-
cedony that are cut to expose a darker central disc against a lighter rim—thus producing an
‘eye’ effect—appeared in Mesopotamia in the Early Dynastic III period (c. mid third millen-
nium BC). The practice of marking these beads with inscriptions to denote ownership or to
indicate their votive or apotropaic functions was introduced at the end of the third millen-
nium, in the transition between the Akkadian and Ur III periods (Clayden 2009: 41).
The numbers and geographic distribution of eye-stones, along with their mention in cunei-
form texts, increased dramatically in the late second millennium BC during the Kassite per-
iod (Clayden 2009: 43–44).
Figure 10. Tomb LCG-1: inscribed Kassite eye-stone DA34259 (figure by H. David-Cuny, courtesy of the Ministry of
Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate of Oman).
119
Eye-stone DA34259 from tomb LCG-1 is slightly oval, with a diameter ranging from
14.8–15.3mm, and a maximum thickness of 6.7mm. The bead was worked from a banded
agate to obtain a central, slightly irregular brown-orange disc on a white background. It bears
three cuneiform signs engraved cursively in two lines to form the divine name Gula (dgu-/la)
(G. Marchesi pers. comm.), the principal Mesopotamian healing deity and patroness of doc-
tors during the Kassite period (Böck 2014). Such eye-stones that bear only the name of a
deity all date to this period (Clayden 2009: 49). Gula is also mentioned on an eye-stone
that features a three-line votive inscription from the king of Babylon Šagarakti-Šuriaš
(1245–1233 BC) (Clayden 2009: 48 & tab. 3/34).
Discussion
As there is no direct information concerning the socio-economic and political organisation of
the Oman Peninsula in any known textual source after the Ur III period to the very end of the
time span covered by LCG-1 (Yule 2014: 17–18), a detailed study of material culture from
the tomb is essential for reconstructing the extensive network of Late Bronze Age and Early
Iron Age cross-cultural interactions involving South-eastern Arabia. During this period, the
major long-distance exchange networks developed across Western Asia were mainly based on
the movement of unalloyed tin ingots and tin-bronze objects (Weeks 1999; Berger et al.
2019). Due to its relative isolation during the Wadi Suq period, in the Middle Bronze
Age, metal objects in the Oman Peninsula were almost always made from pure, local copper,
while tin-bronze artefacts began appearing in larger quantities in the region only from the
Late Bronze Age (Begemann et al. 2010: 140–41). During the Iron Age, Omani copper
was no longer exported to Mesopotamia, which began to rely on Cypriot sources (Begemann
et al. 2010: 137), but rather it was processed at large metallurgical sites along the eastern
fringes of the Rub al-Khali Desert. This evidence revealed the existence of an extensive, long-
distance exchange network connecting the Oman Peninsula with the major metallurgical
centres of Assyria, Urartu and the Elam (Potts 2009; Weeks et al. 2017, 2018, 2019; Gernez
2018).
The large, diversified assemblage of imported artefacts discovered in tomb LCG-1 con-
firms and further illustrates the features of such a network of long-distance cross-cultural
exchange. Although the copper-based tools and weapons from LCG-1 are still under analysis
(Genchi 2013: 39–44), they compare typologically to those found in the metal recycling
workshop of ‘Uqdat al-Bakrah, along Wadi Dank in north-western Oman (Yule & Gernez
2018). According to Gernez (2018: 172), these were either inspired by or imported from
Khuzestan, Luristan or the Gilan Plain in western and northern Iran (Gernez 2018: 172).
The established Elamite presence along the eastern shores of the Gulf left scant archaeo-
logical evidence in Eastern Arabia. According to Potts (2006: 119), with reference to the Kas-
site control over Dilmun and the Western Gulf region, “this pattern can be explained by a
deliberate attitude of non-interference in a zone that was clearly perceived as lying well within
the sphere of influence of their Kassite relations-by-marriage”. The presence of both Elamite
and Kassite artefacts at Dibbā al-Bayah and Tell Abraq seems, therefore, to define an area
facing the Strait of Hormuz, where the two spheres overlapped and intertwined. Although
the presence of Elamite seals at both sites may initially attest to direct commercial exchange,
120
Potts (2010: 37) suggests that “cylinder seals may have been sought after as prestige objects by
local east Arabians, and their presence might not necessarily signal the presence of foreigners
or the adoption of sealing protocols”. This assumption might also apply to DA29479/2,
which bears an iconography that appears to refer to a health-related demon connected to
Gula, the ‘Great Healer’ (Black & Green 2014: 43). The presence of a Kassite eye-stone spe-
cifically dedicated to Gula—a valuable, exotic object with strong apotropaic connotations—
might further support this premise.
In the absence of documentary evidence for the adoption of seal-based, bureaucratic pro-
cedures at sites in South-eastern Arabia—either at the household or a higher administrative
level—the local production of seal-like objects such as DA34264 and DA35873 could
represent an attempt to create apotropaic amulets and symbols of high status, rather than
actual administrative tools (Black & Green 2014: 30). Phillips (2010) proposes a comparable
phenomenon for the early second-millennium BC production of hybrid Aegypto-Canaanite
scarabs featuring local Minoan designs on Crete.
Conclusions
The discovery in tomb LCG-1 at Dibbā al-Bayah of a number of highly valuable, finely
crafted objects imported from distant regions indicates an exceptionally affluent and influen-
tial community involved in trading with both the Kassite and Elamite cultural components of
an interaction sphere that encompassed both shores of the Gulf. The likely production date of
such artefacts within the use-life of tomb LCG-1 and the high degree of cross-cultural under-
standing attested by the selection of specific objects and iconographies—combined with the
local creation of new object types inspired by contemporaneous exotic productions—seem to
suggest that their arrival in the north of the Oman Peninsula probably resulted from some-
what direct interactions, rather than down-the-line, segmented exchange extending over sev-
eral centuries.
Most of the objects presented and discussed in this article appear to have been selected
not only for their exotic appeal, but also for their original apotropaic function. This sug-
gests the existence of a significant degree of cross-cultural understanding that would pre-
suppose an unbroken transmission between the producing and receiving cultural spheres.
This cognitive process of reciprocal recognition probably also formed the basis for the
local creation of objects, the forms and iconographic composition of which—even if
adopted from foreign traditions—were considered suitable for conveying powerful mean-
ings deeply rooted in the local culture. In these artefacts, the prehistoric communities of
South-eastern Arabia further demonstrated their capacity for interacting with foreign pol-
ities (Frenez 2019: 34–35), displaying a deep understanding of distant cultures and a con-
comitant respect for their own traditions in a seamless history of assimilation through
adaptation.
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to Gianni Marchesi (University of Bologna) for reading the cuneiform
inscription on the eye-stone. All text is by Dennys Frenez (except for the ‘Stamp seals
DA34264, DA35873’ section that was co-authored by Dennys Frenez and Hélène David-
121
Cuny), and is based on an original graphic documentation by Hélène David-Cuny and con-
textual information provided by Francesco Genchi and Sultan Al-Bakri.
Funding statement
The authors wish to thank the Ministry of Heritage and Culture (now Heritage and Tour-
ism) of the Sultanate of Oman for supporting and coordinating the excavation of LCG-1, and
for permitting this publication.
References
Azzarà, V.M. 2009. Domestic architecture at the Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of
Early Bronze Age sites HD-6 and RJ-2 (Ja’alan, radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337–60.
Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865
Arabian Studies 39: 1–16. Cable, C.M. & C.P. Thornton. 2013.
Begemann, F., A. Hauptmann, Monumentality and the third millennium
S. Schmitt-Strecker & G. Weisgerber. 2010. ‘towers’ of the Oman Peninsula, in S. Abraham,
Lead isotope and chemical signature of copper P. Gullapalli, T.P. Raczek & U.Z. Rizvi (ed.)
from Oman and its occurrence in Mesopotamia Connections and complexity: new approaches to the
and sites on the Arabian Gulf coast. Arabian archaeology of South Asia: 375–99. Walnut Creek
Archaeology and Epigraphy 21: 135–69. (CA): Left Coast.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0471.2010. Caputo, F.P. & F. Genchi. 2016. Seashell discs
00327.x from the Early Iron Age graves of Daba (Dibbā,
Ben-Tor, D. 2007. Scarabs, chronology and Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for
interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Arabian Studies 46: 41–44.
Second Intermediate period. Göttingen: Charbonnier, J. 2017. The genesis of oases in
Vandenhoeck. Southeast Arabia: rethinking current theories and
Berger, D., J.S. Soles, A.R. Giumlia-Mair, models, in E. Lavie & A. Marshall (ed.) Oases and
G. Brügmann, E. Galili, N. Lockhoff & globalization: ruptures and continuities: 113–31.
E. Pernicka. 2019. Isotope systematics and Basel: Springer International.
chemical composition of tin ingots from Clayden, T. 2009. Eye-stones. Zeitschrift für
Mochlos (Crete) and other Late Bronze Age Orient-Archäologie 2: 36–86.
sites in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea: an Cleuziou, S. 1996. The emergence of oases and
ultimate key to tin provenance? PLoS ONE 14: towns in Eastern and Southern Arabia, in
e0218326. G. Afanasev, S. Cleuziou, J.R. Lukacs & M. Tosi
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218326 (ed.) The prehistory of Asia and Oceania: 159–65.
Black, J. & A. Green. 2014. Gods, demons and Forlì: ABACO Edizioni.
symbols of ancient Mesopotamia: an illustrated Cleuziou, S. & S. Méry. 2002. In-between the
dictionary. Austin: University of Texas Press. great powers: the Bronze Age Oman Peninsula, in
Böck, B. 2014. The healing goddess Gula: towards an S. Cleuziou, M. Tosi & J. Zarins (ed.) Essays on
understanding of ancient Babylonian medicine. the late prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula (Serie
Leiden: Brill. Orientale Roma XCIII): 273–316. Rome:
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261464 Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente.
Bortolini, E. & O. Munoz. 2015. Life and death Cleuziou, S. & M. Tosi. 2007. In the shadow of the
in prehistoric Oman: insights from Late Neolithic ancestors: the prehistoric foundations of the early
and Early Bronze Age funerary practices (4th–3rd Arabian civilization in Oman. Muscat: Ministry of
mill. BC), in H.M. Al-Lawati & D. Frenez (ed.) Heritage and Culture of Oman.
The archaeological heritage of Oman: 61–80. Cocca, E., G. Vinci, M. Cattani, A. Armigliato,
Muscat: Ministry of Heritage and Culture of the A. Di Michele, M. Bianchi & I. Gennuso.
Sultanate of Oman. 2019. Al-Khutm Project 2017/2018: a Bronze
122
Age monumental tower (Bat, Oman). Proceedings Humphries, J. 1974. Harvard Archaeology Survey
of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 49: 85–96. in Oman, II: some later prehistoric sites in the
Curci, A., M. Carletti & M. Tosi. 2014. The Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for
camel remains from site HD-6 (Ra’s al-Hadd, Arabian Studies 4: 49–77.
Sultanate of Oman): an opportunity for a critical Kenoyer, J.M. 2008. Indus civilization, in
review of dromedary findings in Eastern Arabia. D.M. Pearsall (ed.) Encyclopedia of archaeology:
Anthropozoologica 49: 207–22. 715–33. San Diego (CA): Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.5252/az2014n2a04 – 2013. Eye beads from the Indus tradition:
David-Cuny, H. & D. Neyme. 2016. Failaka seals technology, style and chronology. Journal of Asian
catalogue, volume 2: tell F6 ‘The Palace’. Kuwait Civilizations 36(2): 1–22.
City: National Council for Culture, Arts and Laursen, S.T. & P. Steinkeller. 2017. Babylonia,
Letters. the Gulf Region, and the Indus: archaeological and
Döpper, S. & C. Schmidt. 2017. The development textual evidence for contact in the third and early
of complexity at 3rd millennium BC al-Khashbah, second millennium BC (Mesopotamian
Sultanate of Oman: results of the first two seasons Civilizations 21). Winona Lake (IN):
2015 and 2016. Proceedings of the Seminar for Eisenbrauns.
Arabian Studies 47: 215–26. Loreto, R., F. Mauro, E. Maini & F. Candilio.
Dubin, L.S. 2009. The magical eye bead, in 2019. The desert lord of Sinaw, in D. Frenez &
L.S. Dubin (ed.) The worldwide history of beads: M. Cattani (ed.) Dreamers: 40 years of Italian
309–15. London: Thames & Hudson. archaeological research in Oman: 108–10. Rome:
Fattore, L. 2014. The bones do tell stories: ISMEO.
excavation of human remain from Daba LCG-1 Magee, P. 2014. The archaeology of prehistoric Arabia:
and LCG-2, in F. Genchi (ed.) Explorations at adaptation and social formation from the Neolithic
Daba, Sultanate of Oman: preliminary report to the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge
(October to December 2013). Unpublished University Press.
report prepared for the Ministry of Heritage and https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139016667
Culture, Sultanate of Oman, Muscat. – 2015. When was the dromedary domesticated in
Frenez, D. 2019. Cross-cultural trade and the ancient Near East? Zeitschrift für
socio-technical developments in the Oman Orient-Archäologie 8: 253–78.
Peninsula during the Bronze Age, ca. 3200 to Matthews, M.D. 1990. Principles of composition in
1600 BC. OCNUS 27: 9–49. Near Eastern glyphic of the later second millennium
Genchi, F. 2013. Explorations at Daba, Sultanate of BC. Freiburg: Zurich Universitätsverlag.
Oman: preliminary report (April 2013). Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R. 1971. Western Asiatic
Unpublished report prepared for the Ministry of jewellery, c. 3000–612 BC. London: Methuen.
Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman, Muscat. Munoz, O. 2019. Promoting group identity and
– 2014. Explorations at Daba, Sultanate of Oman: equality by merging the dead: increasing
preliminary report (October to December 2013). complexity in mortuary practices from the Late
Unpublished report prepared for the Ministry of Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in the Oman
Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of Oman, Muscat. Peninsula and their social implications, in
Genchi, F., L. Fattore, A. Nava & E. Maini. K.D. Williams & L.A. Gregoricka (ed.) Mortuary
2018. The LCG-2 complex at Dibbā and bioarchaeological perspectives on Bronze Age
(Musandam, Oman, II–I millennium BC): Arabia: 76–107. Gainesville: University of
structural, material, and osteological elements. Florida Press.
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 48: https://doi.org/10.5744/florida/
99–117. 9781683400790.003.0002
Gernez, G. 2018. ‘Uqdat al-Bakrah in the context of Negahban, E.O. 1996. Marlik: the complete
Eastern Arabia and the ancient Near East excavation report (University Museum
archaeology, in P.A. Yule & G. Gernez (ed.) Early Monograph 87). Philadelphia: University
Iron Age metal-working workshop in the Empty Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Quarter, Al-Zahirah Province, Sultanate of Oman: Pellegrino M.P., M. Degli Esposti, M. Buta,
171–78. Bonn: Habelt. E. Tagliamonte & S. Ali Hassan. 2019.
123
Grave-goods from the long chamber tomb ‘Dibba Archaeology of the UAE, Abu Dhabi: 102–49.
76/1’ (Fujairah, UAE): a first inventory. Arabian London: Trident.
Archaeology and Epigraphy 30: 32–74. Weeks, L.R. 1999. Lead isotope analyses from Tell
https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12120 Abraq, United Arab Emirates: new data regarding
Phillips, J. 2010. Non-administrative glyptic the ‘tin problem’ in Western Asia. Antiquity 73:
relations between the Aegean and Egypt, in I. Pini 49–64.
& W. Müller (ed.) Corpus der Minoischen https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00087834
und Mykenischen Siegel: 309–23. Mainz: Weeks, L.R. et al. 2017. Recent archaeological
Von Zabern. research at Saruq al-Hadid, Dubai, UAE. Arabian
Potts, D.T. 2000. Ancient Magan: the secrets of Tell Archaeology and Epigraphy 28: 31–60.
Abraq. London: Trident. https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12082
– 2006. Elamites and Kassites in the Persian Gulf. – 2018. Saruq al-Hadid: a persistent temporary place
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65: 111–19. in late prehistoric Arabia. World Archaeology 51:
https://doi.org/10.1086/504986 157–82.
– 2009. Urartian and Assyrian echoes at Saruq https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.
al-Hadid (Emirate of Dubai). Liwa 2: 3–9. 1491324
– 2010. Cylinder seals and their use in the Arabian Weeks, L.R., H. David-Cuny, A. Avanzini,
Peninsula. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 21: S. Lischi, F. Genchi, F. Caputo, Y.Y. Al Ali &
20–40. M. Boraik. 2019. Worked and decorated shell
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0471.2009. discs from Southern Arabia and the wider Near
00319.x East. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 30: 213–
Potts, D.T., D.L. Martin, K. Baustian & 38. https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12126
A. Osterholtz. 2013. Neonates, infant Weisgerber, G. 2007. Copper in the 2nd
mortality and the pre-Islamic Arabian amuletic millennium BC (Wadi Suq period), in
tradition at Tell Abraq. Liwa 5(9): 3–14. S. Cleuziou & M. Tosi (ed.) In the shadow of the
Reimer, P.J. et al. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 ancestors: the prehistoric foundations of the early
radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50 000 years Arabian civilization in Oman: 277–78. Muscat:
cal BP. Radiocarbon 55: 1869–87. Ministry of Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate
https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 of Oman.
Roach, K.J. 2008. The Elamite cylinder seal corpus, Wiggermann, F.A.M. 2000. Lamaštu, daughter of
c. 3500–1000 BC. Unpublished PhD Anu: a profile, in M. Stol & F.A.M. Wiggermann
dissertation, University of Sydney. (ed.) Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: its
Sallaberger, W. & I. Schrakamp. 2015. Mediterranean setting: 217–53. Groningen: Styx.
Philological data for a historical chronology of Williams, K.D., D. Frenez, H. David-Cuny &
Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BC, in L.A. Gregoricka. In press. Recent excavations of
W. Sallaberger & I. Schrakamp (ed.) History & the Iron Age mortuary complex at the site of
philology (ARCANE III): 1–136. Turnhout: Brepols. Shokur, Dhank, al-Dhahirah, Sultanate of
Thornton, C.P. 2013. Mesopotamia, Meluhha, and Oman. Journal of Oman Studies.
those in between, in H.E.W. Crawford (ed.) The Yule, P.A. 2014. Cross-roads: Early and Late Iron Age
Sumerian world: 598–617. New York: Routledge. South-eastern Arabia. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Velde, C. 2003. Wadi Suq and Late Bronze Age in Yule, P.A. & G. Gernez (ed.). 2018. Early Iron Age
the Oman Peninsula, in D.T. Potts, metal-working workshop in the Empty Quarter,
H. Al-Naboodah & P. Hellyer (ed.) Proceedings of Al-Zahirah Province, Sultanate of Oman. Bonn:
the First International Conference on the Habelt.
124

The Early Iron Age Collective Tomb LCG-1 at Dibbā Al-Bayah, Oman: Long-Distance Exchange and Cross-Cultural Interaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Early Iron Age Collective Tomb LCG-1 at Dibbā Al-Bayah, Oman: Long-Distance Exchange and Cross-Cultural Interaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antiquity 2021 Vol.

The Early Iron Age collective tomb LCG-1 at Dibbā

The Iron Age (c. 1300–600 BC) of South-eastern

Received: 12 November 2019; Revised: 28 March 2020; Accepted: 7 April 2020

Stamp seals (DA34264, DA35873): the Gulf region

Cylinder seal (DA29479/2): south-western Iran

Gold pendant (DA29588): north-western Iran

Eye-stone (DA34259): Babylonia

You might also like